Bettelheim's Test

"...a self, if it is not to wither away, must forever be testing
itself against the nonself in a process of active assertion....
Testing implies both respect and consideration for what we test
ourselves against. Otherwise it becomes not a test of self, but of
something entirely different, perhaps of brute force.

"As a matter of fact, what a person selects as a testing ground is
most indicative of the nature and quality of the self. A passive
yielding to certain experiences can be a much more subtle testing of
the self against the nonself than meeting it aggressively. Success is
then not a question of how unchanged the self emerges from the test
nor how much it has bent the nonself to its will, but how enriched it
became in the process" (Bettelheim 1967, quoted in Zaner 1981).

Zaner remarks that the "enrichment of self must be understood not as a
mere playful metaphor, but a rigorously descriptive concept. Such
enrichment is a continuous, simultaneous process in which one enhances
the other philosophically. We note that what is at stake is a
continually ongoing, internally rhythmed and always precarious
mutuality."

This passage from Bettelheim provokes a question concerning Ben
Wright's transitions from physics to psychology to measurement,
namely: What was there in his psychology training, as opposed to his
physics training, that prepared him to recognize the value of what
Rasch said in 1960? Was there something that helped him not only to
recognize but also to grasp and tenaciously pursue the implications of
what Rasch said? Bettelheim's text suggests such a "something" - the
factor of mutuality that is as crucial to the success of educational
measurement as it is to the development and maturation of the human
self.

I came across the Bettelheim quote by chance. I read books like
Zaner's for clues as to how measurement can be better understood.
Explicit use of measurement or testing concepts in such books are
rare. Gadamer's metaphor - conversation is a test involving the art
of questioning - is the only other explicit use of the testing concept
in this context of which I'm aware (Fisher 1990). Given the reactions
of publishers and non-Rasch reviewers to my proposals concerning links
between conjoint measurement and Husserlian phenomenology, one would
hardly expect anything in the published literature to insinuate such a
link. Thus it is rare and satisfying to read Bettelheim describe the
relation of self and other in terms of testing, especially when
testing is defined as "a continually ongoing, internally rhythmed, and
always precarious mutuality." This sounds to me like an apt
description of what measurement is all about.

In 1955, Bettelheim and Wright co-authored a paper called "Staff
Development in a Treatment Institution" and in 1957 one titled
"Professional Identity and Personal Rewards in Teaching". These
articles indicate that Bettelheim had been overtly using the notion of
teaching as a continuous, simultaneous process of mutual self-
enhancement through testing of the self against the other in the
training of his graduate students. They support the hypothesis that
Wright placed great importance on the issues raised in Zaner's quote
from Bettelheim, and that Wright had focused on these issues under
Bettelheim's tutelage before the quote from "The Empty Fortress" was
written.

Recent controversies regarding Bettelheim's capacity to live up to
these subtle standards notwithstanding, we can learn from the
psychometrically relevant aspects of his use of the testing concept.
One can read Zaner's quote on more than one level. The self that must
be constantly testing itself against others, if it is not to wither
away, can be seen as Western, scientific culture. Colonialism,
imperialism, scientific manipulations, and technological control are
processes of active assertion, but they seldom connote much in the way
of respect or consideration for the others against whom the Western
self has tested itself. As such, Western culture is perhaps testing
itself less and its capacity for brute force more.

Western culture has begun to recognize that the testing grounds it has
selected have said far more about its nature and quality than about
the nature and quality of those it has dominated. The vulgar sense of
scientific objectivity takes facts as given in a one-sided relation
with a "nature" invented to be dominated. Non-Western cultures that
place themselves in a more balanced relation with their "nature" have
been overrun by the West's success in conquering its "nature." Now
the West is starting to see that it can and must learn about other
"natures" from other cultures, and that the totalitarian conquest of
"nature" means ultimately not only the withering of the Western self,
but of any other sense of self.

We can address the daunting task of transforming our culture of self-
testing by transforming our conceptualizations of science, technology,
and what we are willing to call measures and measurement. The
importance of additive conjoint measurement, especially in Rasch's
stochastic formulation, is its transformation of science's one-sided,
aggressive process of active assertion and self-testing into a multi-
faceted yielding to interactions with others. Where the former forces
teachers into information dispensers and students into information
recipients, the latter turns this one-way flow back on itself, giving
voice to the students and allowing and fostering learning among
teachers. Where the former accepts data as given, legitimate, and
untouchable, no matter what shape it arrives in, the latter responds
to the basic principles of cognitive psychology and cultural
anthropology in recognizing that data are processed, shaped, and
construed before they are understood to be anything.

These principles are so primordial that Rasch measurement must
eventually bloom into the root paradigm of social, educational, and
psychological measurement. As this happens, we must live up to
Bettelheim's testing standards. We cannot define success as the
extent to which we emerge from current tests unchanged, having bent
others to our will. Our measure of success must follow from the
extent to which we have allowed ourselves to be enriched in the
process.

Bettelheim B 1967. The Empty Fortress: Infantile Autism and the Birth
of the Self. New York: The Free Press, p. 81

Go to Institute for Objective Measurement Home Page.
The Rasch Measurement SIG (AERA) thanks the Institute for Objective Measurement for inviting the publication of Rasch Measurement Transactions on the Institute's website, www.rasch.org.